Re: debiandoc vs. docbook
On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 09:34, John R. Daily wrote:
> At (time_t)1032615395 Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> > Previously John R. Daily wrote:
> > > * FOP is also packaged, but I wouldn't advocate using its output.
> >
> > What is wrong with it?
>
> Just generally poor quality. As an example, with a recent
> version my table of contents only had roughly half the page
> numbers it should have, so it would look something like:
>
> 1 Foo ..............
> 1.1 Bar ..............
> 1.1.1 Baz .............. 2
>
> (The above is from vague memory.)
>
> It seems like a product with much work ahead of it before it
> becomes generally useful. Perhaps a stylesheet with a targetted
> subset of FO would help matters.
With a FOP targeted stylesheet you can clean up some of the ugliness FOP
produces with the TOC and some text. I've done it for the GNOME User's
Guide which was originally written in DocBook XML and has tons of tables
making passsivetex not an option. You can see the GNOME User's Guide at
http://www.gnome.org/learn/. However, I definitely agree that
passivetex makes much nicer output of FO if you do not use tables.
Eric Baudais
Reply to: